Sunday, August 3, 2008

This is based on the game "Risk" by Parker Brothers. I've written an plot outline of what could virtually happen if the game were made into a movie. This took me about 3 months to edit correctly, putting together the numbers of people and strategy actions into real time. The outline is written in a militaristic style, not really a story. Of course, if the game were a movie it would have a story, but in the background layout there would also have to be a strategy outline for what was happening in the world. I've written a plausible outline. If you're a big fan of Risk, you might enjoy reading this. Otherwise, I still hope you enjoy!

------------------------------------------------

Red. Black. Yellow. Pink. Blue. Green. It's the year 2157 A.D. The continents have changed. The world has changed. The United States is divided into two, Russia is no longer a country, and China has lost over 100,000 square miles of land. The Atomic Weaponry Act was passed seventeen years before in 2140, requiring all nuclear and atomic weapons to be shut down and/or destroyed. It's a different world, and six main powers rule.

The Reds are the Orientals. There is no North or South Korea. They don't have too many countries in their possession, but they have men. Lots of men. Their communistic propaganda reigns throughout their united army, which is an effective tool to boost the mens' moral. The army's motto, "We stand together," serves as a fierce opponent for those who stand against their might.

The Blacks are the Arabians and Africans. They have control of Africa, the Middle East, and two countries of Europe. Their power lies in resources.

The Yellows are the Russians, who desperately want their old large land mass of the country they once owned. These rising powers predominantly have control over Asia. They, like the Orientals, also have their strength lying within man power.

The Pinks are weak Indians. They control Indonesia and India... and only those. The massive population of India decreased drastically due from the great "Ming Plague," an increase of locusts due to a Chinese experiment sanctioned by China's President Shai Tsi Ming, which underwent some terrible mishaps, and resulted in a huge migration of locusts from China to India. The locusts sent southern China and all of India into a three-year famine, which resulted in deaths totaling to over 875,000,000 people.

The Blues are the European Union. They have strength in their generals, and strive for a one-world government. They have control over almost all of Europe, and all of South America.

The Greens are Australian and American. They have strength in technology. They own all of North America, and most of Australia.

What happens? War breaks out. These powers know they can defeat others easily, so they fight. The pinks have no interest in war, and are immediately annihilated in India by the Reds, while the Greens take their Indonesia and control all of Australia. The Blues take the rest of Europe away from the Blacks. The Greens and Blues settle down for a while, knowing their powers can hold for the time. The Australians gather up power as the rest of the world fights. The Reds, since they have so little of countries, but so much of men, start taking over Asia. The Yellows try fighting the Reds back until their amount of men has failed so much that they surrender. The Reds now almost have complete control over Asia. The Blacks understand this is too much land for them to cover. They fight the Reds in a long battle until the Reds overcome the Blacks in the Middle East. The Blacks attempt to take it back but fail, with the Red totally conquering them in Africa. The Reds now control all of Asia and Africa.

Now the European Union (Blues) and the American-Autralian Alliance who represent Republic-Democracy (Greens) make a temporary alliance and fight the Reds. The Reds aren't easy to take. They have all the resources of Asia and Africa combined, making them an extremely powerful force. But the Blues and Greens control everything else. They make a final march against the Reds. If they fail they must make ends meet to try and form a peace, being the three powers of the world. But they know they will not comply. This promotes the Blues and Greens to fight as much as they possibly can. They attack in three places. The ever-growing power in Australia has reached such a peak that they attack Siam. The Americans attack from Alaska to Kamchatka. The Blues attack from Brazil to North Africa, and from the Ukraine to Afghanistan and the Middle East, but leaving some to defend Europe from the Ural. They make such a tightening grip on the Reds that the pressure destroys them. The Blues now have control of Europe, South America, and Africa. The Greens now have control over Australia, North America, and Asia.

The Blues are for one-world government, so they do anything they can for their goal of power. In a limited time of peace, the Blues surprise the Greens with an all-out attack on Asia. All the australian troops withdraw to Indonesia with a secret pact with the Americans, later to be deadly to the Blues. However, the Greens, thinking they were too powerful to be attacked, totally ignored that it might occur. The Blues succeed in conquering most of Asia. The Greens don't know what hit them, so they fight, and they fight hard. The Australians, since they had withdrawn every single troop from their posts in Asian territory to Indonesia, have an extraordinary amount of power. Australia is easy to keep, and can only be attacked from Siam into Indonesia. This gargantuan amount of men marches on Siam and takes it in one day. The Americans still have some of Asian territory. But the Greens control extreme amounts of resources. The Blues and Greens fight long and very hard, until they rest. Asia is divided between them half and half.

Remember, the Greens represent Republic-Democracy, and the Blues represent the European Union; the New World Order. The Greens know they can't let them rule with absolute power. Tyranny is the last thing they want. The Greens do something drastic and unexpected. They attack South America. South America has never been attacked ever since the war began, so no preparations were ever made. They had a strong enough force to hold the Greens back, but not enough for a full-fledged attack upon them with new reinforcements. South America is taken by the Greens. The Greens now have control over the Western Hemisphere (North and South America), half of Asia, and Australia. The Blues control Europe, Africa, and half of Asia.

The Greens try and focus on attacking the main base of the Blues: Europe, which is fully protected in Iceland. The Greens gather reinforcements from the Western United States into Greenland and, surprisingly, take Iceland. They go on to conquer Scandinavia and the Ukraine, but cease to keep North America strong in defence.

The Blues have been shaken severely, but do not reform themselves to retake Europe. Instead, they take all they have and conquer the rest of Asia, despite the Green's efforts. The Greens only have one thing left to do. The Blues have pretty much the same amount of power that the Reds had when they were in power, and when they were in power the Blues and Greens had everything else. Now, the the Greens have everything else, and the Blues are surrounded. The Greens decide to use the same tactic and the Blues that they used with them before to defeat the Reds. They surround them. They attack them from Alaska to Kamchatka, from Brazil to North Africa, from Indonesia to Siam, and from Ukraine to Afganistan and the Ural, leaving some behind for protection against the Middle East. They attack the Urals because it has less men stationed there than the Middle East. The Blues understand that they cannot stand against a united people. Before it was Blue and Green against Red, but now it is just the Greens and the Blues. One on one. The Blues fight with what they've got. But, like before with the Reds, the pressure is too great. Before the end, the Blues attack the Ukraine from the Middle East and hold it, knowing it's a link between the Greens from Europe to Asia. The Middle East was never attacked. The Greens then move backward after all of Asia is retaken, and Africa is conquered off. The Ukraine doesn't stand a chance against the Greens and is retaken as well, making the final battle occur in the Middle East, Armageddon.

The Republic-Democracy of America and Australia is the victor, and the New World Order is extinguished off the earth's surface. The Greens decide to go back to the "old days" of the 2000s. Every culture is given back the land they originally had, with new rulers who do not hold to tyranny. There is peace for 1,000 years.

...

1,000 years later..........

In a government room in Russia, the President of Russia is talking with the Presidents of 5 other basic nations in power, when a dark shadow rolls quickly across the room. The President's eyes widen, however, the other government people do not notice the shadow that sped by. The President gets up and starts to speak about problems with the Arabians, explaining they do not cope with Russian standards and must meet them somehow. But how? He walks over to a world map stretched across the main wall, looks at a section of the Middle East and utters, "We can take them."

Each President looks at him, each with a serious eye, and, showing the face of the Russian President, who gives off a hint of a smile, his eyes glisten, revealing the evil residing within.

Nuclear physicist Robert Gentry has written in many mainstream secular scientific journals including Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, and others. Why would such a renowned scientist like Gentry lose his job? The reason: radio polonium halos.

What makes them so significant? Well, when polonium halos decay, pieces fly off; like a hand grenade going off underwater. The pieces will all fly a certain distance, depending upon what element is breaking apart. Polonium has a very short half-life: from around 3 minutes all the way down to .164 seconds (164 thousandths of a second). Very miniscule. This means that within a few minutes, all of it is going to be gone. If you exploded a hand grenade underwater, the fragments will fly out into a sphere, then crumble in just a moment, and the sphere disappears. Now, explode a grenade underwater in a lake and then freeze the lake so fast that you'll preserve the sphere. Impossible, I know, but if you could you'd have a ring of the grenade fragments.

This is what we have with polonium. These halos have a short half-life. The problem is, they're found in granite which proves against the evolutionary theory that the earth was ever a hot, molten mass. If it were, the halos wouldn't be there, they would have disappeared. This heartily supports the Bible since the Bible says the earth was a sphere of water when creation began with it (which was cold by definition if it was water).

This is why evolutionists cut Gentry's funding for his research: he was creationist, he proved creation, and he disproved evolution. Gentry has discovered even more, but yet again the evolutionary dogmatists must suppress it and keep the rebuttal off of them. This censorship of his work began recently in 2001. According to an article I read,

"...Los Alamos National Laboratory personnel deleted his ten scientific papers on cosmology and astrophysics from their U. S. government sponsored e-print archive, prior to their scheduled release on the Internet on the evenings of 2/28/01 and 3/5/01. Continued suppression of these papers, now by Cornell University, stems both from the resistance of evolutionists to the implications of his discovery that the universe possesses a nearby universal Center -- which overthrows big-bang cosmology with its crucial assumption of a no-center universe -- and from his discovery of GENESIS, a new astrophysical model of the cosmos which affirms that the literal six-day Genesis record includes the creation of the visible universe."

Is this not discrimination?

--Why did Roger DeHart lose his job? He was a science teacher at Burlington-Edison High School, just to get you informed. Well, he was forbidden to pass out articles from updated science journals, which informed the students about errors in the textbooks which beforehand, supported evolution theory. He did it anyway and was fired. He never mentioned one thing about the Bible or creation; just lies in the books, and he was fired for pointing them out. Is this not prejudice and dogma that pushes the school to do this? He dared go against errors because if he did, the kids just might doubt evolution, and they sure don't want that...

--Biology teacher, Kevin Haley from Oregon Community College: Fired for exposing errors in the textbooks.

--William Dembski from Baylor University in Waco, Texas: Fired for advocating "intelligent design."

--Dean Kenyon, biology teacher at San Fransisco State University and author of many secular textbooks having to do with evolution: Fired for getting converted to Christianity and doubting Darwin's theory. He sued the school and was reassigned his job, but only because he was a tenured professor.

--Forrest Mims was a science writer for 20 years, who published articles in mainstream science magazines like National Geographic, Science Digest, The American Journal of Physics, and 60 other magazines and newspapers. He was denied a job for Scientific American because he was a creationist. Why?

--Biology instructor from the Faribault School District, Rod LaVake, was reassigned just because he doubted Darwin's theory.

--Caroline Crocker, a former biology professor at George Mason University, was not offered a contract renewal after she mentioned intelligent design in one of her classes. She said, "I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution," said Crocker, a charge that the university denies. "Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobsif they spoke out."

Now you'll say, "She probably didn't lose her job for that reason. I mean, the university denied it. What did they really say?" Well, they said Crocker "was let go at the end of her contract period for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design,"(1) but he continued, "But teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach," he added, "and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology. Does academic freedom 'literally give you the right to talk about anything, whether it has anything to do with the subject matter or not?' The answer is no."

Seems reasonable, doesn't it? A reporter later queried the students about if Crocker's job loss caused students to fear retrospect for their views about intelligent design. The answers were obvious from the reporter: "I went up to this last student after the class. She initially agreed to be identified, but moments later, remembering what Crocker had said about the scientific establishment's intolerance of dissent, she begged me not to publish her name. The fear on her face was palpable. She wanted to be a veterinarian and was convinced that dream would be smashed if powerful scientists learned she had dared to question evolution."

...So what do professors do? In Iowa they sure don't want it. An Iowa professor said that professors should be able to "...fail any student, no matter what the grade records indicate, if the professor discovers the student is a creationist. Furthermore, the students department should have the right of retracting grades and possibly even degrees if the student becomes a creationist later."(2)

I'd like to end this with a suggestion: Why don't you see the documentary "Expelled" by Ben Stein. Sure, he supports intelligent design, moving the creator problem to somewhere else, and probably still a believer in "millions of years," but hey! At least he also realizes that the theories of creation and intelligent aren't being given equal time intervals in the schools with the current myth being taught: evolution.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

This is a little something I wrote years ago as a written version of a thriller story I told my sister one night. We were talking about "The Illustrated Man" by Ray Bradbury and I just made this up off the top of my head when telling it. It's a little reformed now, with grammar, punctuation, etc., but some of the grammar might be a little off, but don't forget, this was waay back when I was 15, so the grammar, I hope, will be excused at points.

This is a very long short story. Yes, strange way to put it, I know. But nevertheless, interesting to you, I hope. Here we go...

-------------------------------------------

Tim Arnold met a good friend of his named Harry Trumb in a bar he walked to on every Saturday. It was Spring of 1985 in the state of Connecticut, and Harry began his tale.

"There's a legend that settles around this bar we're in right now. About 44 years ago in this very bar, a bad storm hit this place in a heart beat. The men didn't care; they continued their drinking and talking. Now Tim, do you know what ball lightning is?"

"Yeah, I've heard of it, but I'm not sure. What is it?" Tim responded.

"Ball lightning a natural phenomenon that happens rarely all around the world. It be up to basketball size and as small as a golf ball or even smaller. Basically, it's lightning that comes in a ball shape. Not too many people can explain it, but if you were unaware of what it was, you'd be one of two things: scared stiff or totally amazed. You might even be both. I have to explain this to you before we get on with the story or else you'll have no idea what I'm talking about.

"Anyway, this bar we sit in had a big storm come over it; say 5:00 in the afternoon; but no one cared too much and continued their daily alcohol. Lighting struck the chimney, and the mere sound of that shook just about everybody. Down the chimney came ball lightning; maybe about 3 or 4 of them, the biggest one being the size of my fist. You should have seen the panic that hit everyone. The men were running around, jumping under tables, and doing anything else possible to avoid the little lightning balls, because these balls are very fast when they travel in the air. When they aren't moving they just hover. Maybe a minute and a half after that, the balls started disappearing into all sorts of metal and anything electric. The last one bounced off one man who fainted right afterward, and then it disappeared outside the window and went into a car outside. The car started from the lightning entering it which caused even more panic.

"Finally, a police officer who happened to walk by when the car started and saw the commotion inside. The officer dashed in and yelled at the men to stop, and not to panic. He asked what happened and the men explained there were a million fireballs that entered through the chimney and started attacking them. They pointed to the man who had fainted and claimed it was proof that these fireballs must have been evil spirits. The officer ran over to the man and started to revive him with some wiskey. The man woke up and instantly looked around to see if the 'fireballs' were gone. The officer asked what happened and the man said simply, "It tried to kill me!"

"The policeman looked up and the men around him exclaimed the car was running because a 'fireball' was inside. The man who apparently owned the car walked quickly outside into the rain and inspected it. The men inside darted to the window and watched the car inspection with eager eyes, waiting for some great supernatural thing to occur. The man outside opened up the hood and looked inside, and the car stopped running. The man scratched his head in wonder and likewise did the men inside.

"Now, there was a certain man who had run outside in the middle of the ball lightning phenomenon and hid behind a car next to the one being checked. After the police officer entered the bar, he came out of hiding and walked in the door cautiously when the officer was taking a look at the man who had fainted.

"Anyway, the man outside closed the hood down and came inside. The officer had heard of ball lightning before from his father, and explained it was something strange that happened in stormy weather. He didn't know about the technical stuff involved with it, so he just said it was a weather 'goof.' But the man who hid claimed he was wrong, and that this wasn't weather, but evil spirits. The other men believed the officer, however, and then went back to their drinking, with the occurrence being one of the main topics of discussion.

"The man who didn't believe was still scared, so he traveled home and performed his daily tasks, like cleaning his dishes, etc. He didn't have too great of a job, just an assembly line worker for automobiles. He had a bigger dream, though: fame and fortune. Now, of course everyone wants that, but I guess he saw a tad too many movies to really understand. His house wasn't any bigger than 70 x 90 feet. So he finished his duties, and during the time he did them thought about what happened in the bar. He was still terrified of what happened. That night he went to bed and had a dream he was running away from 'fireballs' that were chasing him across a green field. He stumbled and fell, and looked up to see the balls had caught him. The balls turned into horribly deranged, deformed faces that terrified him. He woke up when they were about to attack him.

"There was one slight problem. The storm outside had raged all day, and continued into the night. You will not believe what happened next. Lightning struck his chimney and the ball lightning returned to enter his room. (It was only one ball this time.) The man was literally terrified out of his wits. The lightning bounded across his room faster and faster and faster, hitting every wall and every chair, until it bounced right onto his chest and entered him (he wasn't wearing a shirt in bed). It gave him a slight electric shock. He was so terrified he could not move at all. He fell asleep in his position.

"The next day he decided he had to find out what that thing was; he couldn't take it anymore. About half a mile away was a local General Store. The man who worked there was the desk clerk employee, the manager, and the owner. No one worked under him or above him; he was a loner. He was considered the most intelligent man in the county because he aquired a college education and learned all kinds of things. Whenever someone couldn't figure something out, they came to him and he tried his best to explain their problem. If he couldn't, he always checked his dictionary he had beside him on his counter. (This had happened so many times where people came to him and he didn't know how to explain their problem, so he bought a dictionary to accompany him.) The man hurried his feet to get to the store as fast as he could. He explained what had happened: the bar, the dream, and then his chest. The clerk said he must have been lying (since he knew about ball lightning), because they don't disappear into anything, but rather metal or anything electric like a cord or an outlet. The man left the clerk baffled."

Harry stopped dead in the story. Tim was confused and asked what happened next.

"You really don't want to know what happens next; it just gets worse from here on," said Harry solemnly.

"Suit yourself; you asked," Harry cautioned, "George started home after--"

"Who's 'George'?" Tim interrupted.

"Sorry 'bout that. I forgot to tell you his name was George Dunn. Anyway, George left the clerk, baffled from what he had said. He knew what he saw, and he knew it wasn't his imagination because of the shock he got, so he thought it might've been the wrath of God or something. This is when he started losing it completely. He talked to himself while he walked home, thinking about all the things he could've done that possibly caused 'the wrath of God' to fall upon him. He looked at everyone he passed in a strange, suspicious-like way. As he neared his house his neighbors could see a strange blank glare in his eyes, as if he was looking at something in front of him that wasn't there. The neighbors were getting a bit frightened and stayed a certain distance away from him.

"He entered his house and completely lost his mind. He thought he might be able to wait out the 'wrath' that might come on him later. He stayed in his house and never left for the entire day after that. No one visited during the entire time. The next day he wasn't satisfied with just sitting in his house. He got out of his chair he sat in and entered his workshop where he got all of his tools and nails together, and he took every chair and table and anything wooden except for the chair he used to sit in, and he worked the whole day boarding himself inside his house, isolating himself from anyone that might come along. During this time a neighbor visited him and tried to comfort him all he could, saying he didn't have to do this and it was all in his mind.

"All George responded to that was, 'God is gonna use the devils against me and I don't want that; no sir! I'll show 'em. Those devils aren't gonna outsmart me! Not gonna outsmart ole' George!'

"The neighbor left and George finished the last of his barricade and turned on all his lights with a few candles lighting the places without lightbulbs. Every window was deprived of any source of light. If any one of his lightbulbs or candles was snuffed, there was no seeing in that area ever again. He sat in his chair in the middle of his house, watching; waiting for whatever it was to pass by and let him be. The ball lightning, as I mentioned before, will make you either terrified or astounded. Now, thank God there was no storm that night, but the weirdest thing happened to him the next day. He woke up from his chair and gasped. Every window was no longer boarded. He was petrified with fear. How could anything remove every board without waking him? He stayed awake most of the night; what the hell happened? He instantly got up andd felt where the boards were supposed to be on a window closest to him, and he felt the wood, but he could see light coming through. The boards were still there but he could see through every single one. His house was engulfed by the sun's rays pouring through each of his windows. He pounded on the wood harder and harder. How could he see through it?

"Now, the neighbors outside heard the pounding and walked outside. George was pounding on his window pane. There were no boards. He continued to bang the window and finally broke through it, causing his hands to stain with blood, about 4 or 5 on-looking men rushed to the window and held him down, keeping him from hurting hsi hands anymore than they were. George had never boarded his windows, nor did he ever receive any visitors while he 'worked.' The visitor he received comforted him and talked about his mind doing it all. George's visitor was a figment of his imagination to make himself think someone cared about him. The entire time he was working to board his windows he sat quietly and calmly in his chair thinking about it, never lifting a finger.

"The men who held him down called to the other neighbors to call the police and get a doctor around quick. The police arrived, bandaged his hands, and then took him away. The total time it took to get him to the hospital, he screamed his head off, "WHERE ARE THE BOARDS?! WHERE ARE THEY?!"

"The police took him to a psychologist who concluded he must be out of his mind. The officers sent a detective to the neighborhood where he lived. The residents informed him of the strange look in his eyes and the day he never left his house. The detective came back with the testimonials to which the doctor gave the suggestion of keeping him in a special hospital where he might recover. George didn't have any family he lived with, and his mother and father were dead, so they put him into a psychiatric hospital where he lived for 2 years. He always glared at everyone he passed whenever he walked the hallways of the hospital. When there was a storm he would scurry to his room and tuck deep under the covers until it ended, after which he would continue to walk the halls calmly.

"Over the span of those two years he had a daily talk with a psychologist about the 'fireballs.' The doctor had never heard of such a thing from the start, so his take on it was he must have been dreaming. That's how he approached George every day, with the premise that there was never any incident at the bar, and he never experienced a 'fireball' in his room, that only his imagination had taken hold both times, and that his dream had a continuation in which he was hit by a 'fireball.' It was a nice thing to believe, but George remembered the electric shock he received when it entered him, and it sure didn't feel to him like he might've hit his chest in his sleep. Nevertheless, he forgot the pain he experienced. Those two years in the hospital passed slowly and he lost the memory of what it really was like. In the two years he spent at the hospital, he became sane once again. The doctors noticed he never wandered the halls anymore, he never glared at anyone blankly, and he started reading and learning. He got 'better.' They performed sanity tests and all proved positive, so they let him go.

"George walked the whole distance to his neighborhood. He met the neighbors who lived where he used to but none remembered him anymore, for they had all left over the time he spent away. He finally reached his house which was abandoned ever since he left.

"As he stared at his house two kids came along and exclaimed, 'Don't go in there mister, that's a haunted house!'

"The other kid agreed, 'Yeah, a mad man used to live there; the policemen don't let anyone in. They say it's dangerous but I think he thinks it's haunted too.'

"George smiled and didn't look down at the kids, but continued to fix his eyes upon his house. The kids jogged away and George decided he'd look inside again. He walked slowly through his doorway; the door had been ripped out somehow. He walked left and found the window he had broken; all the glass was gone from the pane and lay on the floor. He turned right and found a door that was shut. He opened it and to his surprise, the moment he opened it it fell straight down onto the floor, revealing his old bedroom. The mattress was old and eaten through by mice who created their nests within. He 'knew,' though, that the 'fireball' wasn't real.

"He left and got a small apartment to stay in. He would get a job the next day and his life would be back in order. That night, a harsh storm, worse than the one he experienced at his house, came upon the apartment. Lightning struck a metal rod on the building and one ball lightning appeared through a naked wire on the floor against the wall. It didn't bounce this time, but hovered closer and closer to George. Suddenly, every memory of that terrible night in his room, the dream, and the bar incident came to him. On very rare occasions, ball lightning doesn't disappear into a metal object or something electric. Instead it vanishes in an explosion which makes a strange discharging electric sound. This is what happened with George. The lightning did just that. It hovered slowly toward him and vanished in a quick explosion. George was totally frozen with horrifying fear, that his mouth was open the entire time, his eyes almost bulging. The second it exploded he died of fright, with the most unpleasant feature on his face, with his open mouth and bulging eyes.

"The next morning, the maid kept knocking and knocking on his door. He never answered so she assumed he had gone out. She opened the door and began dusting his dresser. She noticed a sock laying on the ground, and went into his bedroom to find the other one, but seeing George's face the way it was in bed she jumped up against the wall and screamed. He never moved so she dashed out of the apartment as fast as her legs would carry, and she told the manager at the front what she saw. The manager calmed her down and went up the stairs to his room. Other people had opened their doors and were looking outside, very confused and shaken by the scream. The manager assured everyone that everything was fine and they disappeared back into their rooms. The manager continued to the room with the opened door, and no sooner did he see the body did he run to his side and check his pulse. He was dead all right. He darted down the stairs and called the police.

"The police, when there, could not figure what had happened to George Dunn. Why did he die? He was taken to the hospital for an autopsy. The doctors discovered a small bullet lodged in his chest. Why did the lightning enter his chest? The bullet must have attracted into his chest because of the bullet. No one ever found out what that bullet had come from, but it was there: the very thing that caused George to lose his mind."

That's where Harry discontinued his story, until Tim asked, "Well, what happened next? What happened to the house? Is it still there?"

"Oh it's still there," Harry explained, "But it's all fixed up new now. There's an interesting story behind that too. About two years after the death of George Dunn, a man was looking in that same neighborhood for a house, but all were taken except that one. He was rich from some business he started a while before that, I forgot. The only way he could live in the neighborhood was to either tear down that abandoned house and build a new one in its place, or to fix up the current one. Now, he may have been rich, but he was still thrifty. He knew that fixing up the house would cost much less than hiring people to tear down the house and buying all kinds of tools and materials to build something entirely original from what used to be there. So he chose 'Plan B,' which was to fix it up. The realtor who described the house to never mentioned the fact that a mad man used to live there; he learned that from the neighbors who kept the story alive over time. He wasn't scared of who used to live there, but he also heard of the bar incident, as well as the officer's explaination. He looked into anything he could find that was relatively close to what happened there, and came to the 'ball lightning' explanation.

"When he moved into the house and always kept four thimbles with him whenever he slept. One night, about 5 months after he moved in, a storm hit that brought the ball lightning again, but he was prepared. It entered the bedroom and darted all over the place. The man thought fast and put the thimbles on, held his hand out, and the lightning entered the thimbles and disappeared. He laughed in triumph, knowing he had been smarter than those bar folks. And he still lives there today. He was 38 in 1945 when he moved in so that'd make him... 78 now."

Tim was eager to learn more and asked where the house was. Harry told him it was about 1 mile away on Flatlond Road. Tim got there in about 3 minutes driving his car. He avidly got out of his car and knocked on the door. An old geezer answered with a small voice. Tim explained the story he heard about him and the old man invited him in. Tim found out into a conversation that the old man's name was Edward Dunn, and he was a brother to George. Edward broke the details down on how he looked into the history of George's living in the house, and his job application for the automobile factory he worked at. He found where George was buried and took away the old tombstone. He replaced it with a more elaborate monumental one that was four feet high and made of limestone.

After the conversation ended between the two, Tim asked where the graveyard was so he could see the stone. Edward told him it was about 2 miles away straight down the road leading left from his house. Tim thanked Edward for his hospitality and left, traveling to the graveyard. He found the tombstone. It was all white limestone as Edward described, with a small cross on the top with a circle containing a picture engraved into the stone, depicting a "fireball" in the air, with the name and dates given. On the bottom it said, "Here lies a man who died from fear." Under that it had a small star and then the words, "If you saw what George saw, you'd die too!" Tim chuckled to himself as a dark-haired man walked up next to him.

"Nice fellow," said the man, "but too bad they dug him up and burned him."

When Tim heard this he was stunned. "They dug him up?!" Tim exclaimed, puzzled.

"You mean you don't know??" asked the man.

"I just had a long conversation with George's brother; he never mentioned anything like this!" Tim proclaimed.

"George's brother, Edward, built this bigger grave but he removed his body beforehand and cremated it. I think there was some gold ring he wanted to keep in memory of him. You can probably figure out why he never mentioned that; it was too personal. I was here, though, when he removed his body."

Tim inquired, "What was done with his remains?"

"He buried them back in the ground," the man said. He paused for a while and finally asked, "You know the legend of this guy, right?"

"Yeah, I know it." Tim answered.

"Well if you ever wanted to see the bullet, it's in that small block on the top of the stone," the man said.

Tim had noticed that before but didn't take it to mean anything. He looked at the man and walked over to the gravestone. The block turned out to be a stone box attatched to the stone, and it had hinges so you could open it. Surely enough, inside there was the bullet, roofed by a glass plate to keep people from taking it. Tim drove back to the bar and told Harry about the grave, the brother, the bullet, and everything else he heard.

Harry's simple response was, "Well now. I guess he gained fame in the end after all."

This is the final part of my 10-part answers to Bible contradictions. If you've read all of the previous, I'm glad you've taken interest. Remember, the Bible is infallible. Some people say, "Oh, there are a few nicks here and there, but the message is all that counts." I say to those people, "Think again." The Bible isn't some nice collection of tales with a good message behind them. This was written by the Lord through man, and the Lord don't stutter.

If you're reading this and you disagree, even after all these answers, throw in a comment. I'll be glad to discuss this further with anyone. Thanks for reading.

-------------------------------------

Part 10:Who makes people deaf and blind? God: Exodus 4:11. Who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Foul spirits: Mark 9: 17, 25. And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit. Jesus ... rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.

Easy pickings.

Moses wanted to exclude himself from God's plan of removing the Jews from Egyptian bondage. He said he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue." (Exodus 4:10). When God asked Moses who makes the dumb, deaf, seeing, and blond--er, blind people, He declares he is the Lord and Creator of everything. Him making all deaf people deaf, or all blind people blind is not His point. Some people become blind or deaf accidentally, or in Mark, a demon possessed someone to become that way. What is my point? My point is that we don't own the right to exclude ourselves from anything God wants us to do based on the mere reason of "disability." God is God. He can remedy that.

No contradiction.

Is death final? Yes: Job 20:7. Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung. Isaiah 26:14. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased they shall not rise. No: Luke 14:14. Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. 1 Corinthians 15:16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.

No, death isn't final.

In Job the text talks about what will happen to the wicked, saying that he will perish forever. The wicked are resurrected, but to a resurrection of condemnation.

In Isaiah, read the text before and after it! It's a song by the people of Judah, praising the Lord for deliverance from their enemies. They weren't saying that their enemies wouldn't rise up again in the resurrection. This wasn't the point of the song. Please read the contradiction before posting it.

Did Jesus know everything? Yes: Colossians 2:2-3. Of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. No: Mark 13:32. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Jesus only knows everything earthly and relevent to this life and the everything between Himself and God the Father. He doesn't know what only God the Father knows. All the knowledge and wisdom that could be gained by humans is what Jesus knew. Everything the Father told Jesus is what He told everyone else.

No contradiction.

Who brought evil on Job? Satan: Job 2:7. So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. God: Job 42:11. Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

Notice how it says in 2:7, "So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD..." This obviously shows how Satan, no matter how powerful he may be, is still under God's control. God allowed Satan to bring evil upon Job to test him so he would trust the Lord in all things. In return, since he never cursed God or anything, he received everything doubled except for his children, since his other children were alive with God in Heaven.

Plus, 42:11 speaks of what Job and his family comforted him from. They had no idea Satan was the one who did it. However, God allowed it. There's no contradiction.

Should we try to please others? Yes: 1 Corinthians 10:33. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. No: Galatians 1:10. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Paul is trying to be everything to everyone to win them to Jesus, but it doesn't include agreeing with the truth. 1 Corinthians and Galatians were letters.

Does righteousness come from following the Law? Yes: Luke 1:6. They [Zacharias and Elisabeth] were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. No: Galatians 2:21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Luke never implies that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous because they obeyed they commandments. It just says they walked in righteousness and obeyed the commandments. A better way to say the passage would be, "They were both righteous before God. And because they were both righteous they walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

-------------------------------------------

And that's that with that. Done posting Bible contradiction answers.... for now....

What did they give him to drink?vinegar - Matthew 27:34 wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

I think it's vinegar and gall it speaks of in Matthew 27:34.

No, this doesn't contradict. Myrrh is an extremely bitter and sour herb, and therefore, Mark 15:23 can be translated as "sour wine." Sour wine is vinegar.

How long was Jesus in the tomb?Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day".

These all refer to the resurrection of Christ, yet some of them seem to contradict. But if you look more closely, the emphasis used on the phrases is not the literal number of hours which had passed, but the number of days of which a portion was included in the whole amount.

Jesus was put into the tomb before the Sabbath day, He remained in the tomb on the Sabbath, and then, on the first day of the week, He was gone.

"At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb? At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2), or when it was yet dark (John 20:l)?"

Simple. The sun was rising but it was still dark. In the early morning when the sun rises it is still pretty dark. Notice how in both scriptures it stresses that it was early in the morning. There is no contradiction here.

"Was the tomb open or closed when they arrived? Open (Luke 24:2). Closed (Matt. 28:l)."

Here's what happened at the resurrection (so you don't question it further).1. A big group of women watched the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:55).

2. Jesus' burial took place (Luke 23:55).

3. The women went away to prepare spices and ointments for Him.

4. They rest on the Sabbath and then return to the burial site in two groups on Sunday (Luke 24:1).

5. Mary (supposed to be the mother of James and Joses), Mary Magdalene, and Salome set out ahead of the others while it is still dark (John 20:1), while looking for someone to roll away the stone so they could go inside (Mark 16:3).

6. They are astounded to see that the stone was taken away and the tomb appeared empty.

7. Without going inside, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell the disciples that someone has stolen the body (John 20:2).

8. The other two women go in the tomb and see an angel (Mark 16:5).

9. This same angel who had previously appeared to the guards and rolled away the stone now speaks to them (Matthew 28:5-7), telling them to go tell the disciples.

10. They run out of the tomb, afraid of the angels and too frightened to go tell the disciples (Mark 16:8).

11. In the mean time, Peter was told about it by Mary Magdalene and he runs over to see the empty tomb for himself (Luke 24:12), followed by John (John 20:3).

12. Mary Magdalene also returns behind them and still weeps after they leave (John 20:11).

13. Two angels appear before her to comfort her and Jesus Himself comes to her later (John 20:12-14 and Luke 16:9).

14. After that, she returns to the disciples to inform them of further news (John 20:18).

15. While this is all happening, the frightened Salome and Mary regroup with the rest of the women with the spices and go to the tomb. When they find it empty, they stand, perplexed (Luke 24:4).

16. Right then, two angels appear to the entire group and explain in greater detail about news of the resurrection (Luke 24:4-9).

17. Afterwards, everyone goes back to the disciples (Luke 24:10 and Matthew 28:8).

18. On the way, Jesus meets them and comforts them further (Matthew 28:9-10).

This, I would say, is a complete picture of what happened, taking all the gospels together.

On the "contradiction" you listed, the events of Matthew 28:2-4 occur before the women arrive at the tomb.

"The 'Annunciation' took place after Mary was pregnant (Matt 1:18-21), or the 'Annunciation' took place before Mary was pregnant (Luke 1: 26-31)."

The "Annunciation" was annunciated to Mary before conception and to Joseph afterwards. Simple.

"Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 B.C. (Matt. 2:1), or Jesus was born at the time of Quirinius, in 6 A.D. (Luke 2:2)."

The only census that was taken outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius (a.k.a. "Cyrenius" in the Greek) is the one referred to by the historian Josephus, which says took place in 6 A.D.

But Luke 2:2 says that the census taken at about the time Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This means that there was a later census, which was most likely the one referred to by Josephus, which Luke would have also certainly known about when writing the gospel.

According to a Latin inscription discovered in 1764, there is good reason to believe that Quirinius was in a position of command twice over the province of Syria, which included Israel as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading the military against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor," not your ordinary governor.

During this time there was definitely a taxing. Therefore, it is very possible that an associated census had the details which may have been common knowledge in Luke's time, but are lost to modern history records of today.

"Jesus was crucified when it was the third hour (Mark 15:25), or it could not have been the third hour since he was still before Pilate (John 19:14)."

Easy. John recorded using Roman hours, while the other gospels used the Jewish time system.

"At the hearing before Pilate, Jesus answered no charges (Matt. 27:14), or Jesus responds directly to all of Pilate’s questions (John 18:33-37)."

Is this the best you've got? Matthew only records that Jesus did not answer the charges. John doesn't record the charges that were brought: refusing to pay taxes, etc. etc. He records a brief conversation that Pilate and Jesus had.

The start of a new month! I strongly suggest that you read last month's articles if you haven't done so. Very interesting material you'd find there.

This is part 8 of my answers to acclaimed Bible "contradictions." If you want the beginning story you'll have to go back to August's archives and read the beginning of "Answering Bible Contradictions: Part 1." The acclaimed contradictions are in bold, while my answers are in regular type. Thank you for reading!Strong drink?proverbs 31:6,7john 2:11-11

Wait, what contradiction is there to point out? Read the scripture you are posting. I have heard of this "contradiction" before however, so this is your lucky day. I think the scripture you are referring to isn't John 2:11-11 (11-11??), but is really Timothy 5:23.

Poverbs says it is indeed bad to dring wine since it intoxicates, but in Timothy, Paul refers to medical reasons, since it mentions "...use a little..." and "...for...your frequent infirmities."

When second coming?MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 1 thessalonians 4:15-18

The word "generations" does not necessarily mean the normal twelve years we view a generation as being. There are all kinds of scripture that have "generation" meaning twelve, or five, or a hundred, or a thousand years. The generation Jesus is referring to is the generation of Christ. We have been in that generation for about 2000 years. There is no contradiction.

Solomon's overseers550 in I Kings 9:23250 in II Chron 8:10

Refers to what standards of office the writer was referring to.

The mother of Abijah:Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2

I don't know if Maachah and Michaiah were two people or the same person, but Absalom and Uriel were married. So, where's the contradiction?

When did Baasha die?26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8 36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

Baasha died in the 26th year of king Asa's reign in Judah, just as the writer of 1 Kings tells us.

The reference to the 36th year in II Chronicles 16:1 means the 36th year since the division of the two kingdoms, which fell during the reign of Asa. Rehoboam reigned 17 years, Abijah reigned 3 years, and at the occurrence of this conflict, Asa had reigned 16 years. Baasha would die 10 years after this event.

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2

Look again at the context. II Kings 8:17 says about Joram (also called Jehoram), "Thirty and two yearsold was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem."

That would make him 40 then, right? Then it says about him,

"In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign."

--2 Kings 8:25

Ahaziah was made king when his father reigned, at the age of 22, acccording to II Chronicles 22:2, but after his father's death he was finally confirmed king when he was forty-two years old. The father died when 44, since it was his twelfth year. Ahaziah probably started reigning since the father was sick during the last two years of his life according to II Chronicles, and since Ahaziah was already named king at 22. Simple.

Ahaziah had many nicknames, including Jehoahaz and Shallum. These two names refer to the same person.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?scarlet - Matthew 27:28 purple John 19:2

Does this matter at all? The soldiers grabbed a bright robe that was nearby. Maybe the actual color was somewhere in between (crimson). Maybe the garment gave off hues of both red and purple. (Red and dark black-blue of the night make a purple color.) Who would be dumb enough to care anyway? There is no contradiction here. Also, all through the Bible, and if you study other ancient writings, the color "red" or "scarlet" is used for any object that contains red. Purple contains red. Any questions?

Monday, July 28, 2008

Back to answering acclaimed Bible contradictions! Contradictions are in bold, my answers are in regular type.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; (various trapsing)

You have assumed that the account of Jesus' baptism in John is in the present tense, as it is in Mark, when it is not.

1. John 1:19 sets the context. The things which are present are John the baptist's testimony explaining who he is (John 1:19-25), and of the One who is among them who is greater than he (John 1:26-27).

2. John 1:28 describes the location where this conversation happened, and where John was baptizing.

3. In John 1:29, on "...the next day...", John sees Jesus and expressly says that He is "...the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." John says He is the One that he was speaking about on the previous day, from John 1:30.

4. In John 1:31-33, John tells how Jesus was revealed to him (and to Israel). It was by His baptism. Notice, John's words don't inevitably imply that Jesus had been baptized on that particular day. He makes no mention of when he had baptized Him at all.

5. In John 1:34, having seen, John testifies that Jesus "...is the Son of God."

6. In John 1:35-36, on "...the next day...", John again points to Jesus, directing his own disciples to the Lord.

You're deriving a contradiction by inferring something in which the scripture doesn't.

Since John 1:35 talks about John seeing Jesus the day after he spoke of baptizing him, and further in the context Jesus is going to a wedding in Cana, and not the wilderness, it should be understood that John is speaking of Jesus' baptism at least 40 days after the fact.

I might see a guy, and point out to someone, "That woman is a Christian! I baptized her into Christ!" Does this necessarily imply that she was baptized that same day? Of course not! Neither do John's words reveal anything about the time of Jesus' baptism.

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

There were eleven men who filled the position of apostles between the time of Jesus resurrection and ascension.

The event Paul refers to in I Corinthians 15:5, is either that which is recorded in John 20:19 (at which there were only 10 present) or John 20:26 (which only 11 were at).

Is Paul wrong when he speaks of the "twelve" apostles? The use of the word "twelve" took on more meaning with these chosen disciples of the Lord than simply a number. Any reference to the "twelve" would automatically be understood as the apostles of Christ. Whether all were present or not, the use of the term is not out of line. Jesus, speaking to these men said,

"...Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

--Matthew 19:28

Jesus knew that one was a betrayer, and that one of those present would not sit on a throne, and yet He referred to "twelve." Why? The reference to the "twelve" was more than an counting of heads, it was in reference to the seat of authority which would be given to the apostles, as judges over the twelve tribes of Israel (spiritually).

Judging1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

First of all, I think you mean I Corinthians 2:15, not 3. But, I still really don't see where the contradiction is. "Judges" or "judged" in most translations is rendered as meaning, "discerned." Paul emphasizes difference between the spiritual man, and the natural man.

The natural man can't know the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man is able to discern all things revealed by God.

The words "...he himself is rightly judged by no one", would seem that the apostle is saying that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual man. Those who have lived and served before the Lord for any length of time, and dealt often with those outside Christ know this to be true.

When I Corinthians 4:5 is put into its context, Paul mentions his stewardship before the Lord, and about the judgment of the Corinthians, a human court, or even himself on his stewardship. He warns the Corinthians against making severe judgments, which is especially needed in consideration to emotion and character. He identifies the Lord as being the judge upon whom we wait, who will compose the final judgment.

Good deedsMatt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV) Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

You are confusing two separate issues. In Matthew 5:16, Jesus encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their "goodness" (Matthew 6:3-4).

One scripture deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with how you do them.

For or against?MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.(default is against) MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.(default is for) LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.(default is for)

There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God, or a child of Satan; bound for heaven, or bound for hell.

If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp to the other, but you can not hide in-between the two.

Whom did they see at the tomb?MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. God change?malachi 3:6james 1:171 samuel 15:29jonah 3:10genesis 6:6

1. Are you saying that Luke's reference to men is contradictory to the "angels," simply because he describes them having white, but yet, in another passage, shining garments? Please. The fact that they are "in shining garments" should indicate that these men were angels, just as if they were in white garments. The reference that they are "men" does not contradict, but only describes them in a different way.

The same writing occurs in Genesis 19:1, when "...two angels..." came to Lot in Sodom. However, when the men of the city came to Lot's house, they asked, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" (19:5). There are all kinds of scriptures that do this, simply because the angel has probably appeared in a form that men can understand: a man.

The fact that Matthew mentions only one angel, while both Luke and John mention two, is completely foolish to say to be a contradiction, when Matthew probably just never included that detail. It isn't a contradiction, just something left out. There were probably two angels. It's also possible that Mary saw one angel, and then afterward, two. So what? As I said before, what's the purpose for all four gospels if they are all written exactly alike? It is folly to say this is necessary.

2. About God "changing," God never changes. He only changes as we change, but this doesn't mean He changes His mind either. He would have known about our actions already, and being prepared to do He would when that time came, in our realm of time. God is not in time either. We're the ones stuck in time.

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; zechariah 11:11-13(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

It looks like it references the quote in Ezekiel. Back then, the priests read the scriptures on scrolls; there was no Bible. Many of the books of the Bible today were compiled into one book, like the first five books of the Bible now being the Torah then. The Psalms were actually three separate sections in the scrolls. Possibly, this example applied with the three books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel. Thus, were compiled together at that time and called "Jeremy." There is no contradiction.

Who's sepulchersacts 7:16genesis 23:17,18

Even if a contradiction could be shown here, it would prove nothing against inspiration, for Stephen was not one of the inspired writers. Luke only records what Stephen said. But of course, there is no contradiction here.

The two Scriptures do not refer to the same thing. The sepulchre mentioned in Genesis was in Hebron. The one mentioned by Stephen was in Sychem. This makes it clear that Abraham bought two sepulchres. If you look at the account of the one at Hebron, he purchased the field surrounding the sepulchre; but, in the case of the one at Sychem, no mention is made of the buying of the surrounding field. These are obviously two different fields.

Just to make things interesting, the other "contradiction" is that Genesis 33:19 states that Jacob bought the sepulchre at Sychem. But no such thing is stated in Genesis 33:19. Genesis 33:19 simply states that Jacob bought the field in the area of Sychem; and, since the bones of Joseph were buried in this field, it probably was in this field that Abraham's second sepulchre stood. This also appears from the fact that Abraham’s second sepulchre and the field purchased by Jacob formerly belonged to the same owners. So in this last case we simply have Abraham buying a sepulchre, while later Jacob buys the field in which the sepulchre stood.

In the landmark ruling of 1963, the Supreme Court stated, "It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historical qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may be effected consistently with the First Amendment."(1)

The Supreme Court said, "The Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like."(2) [emphasis added]

The 8th Circut Court found that allowing public school observances which include religious elements promotes the secular purpose of, "...advancing the student's knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural and historical development of civilization."(3)

In 1987 the Supreme Court said, "Teachers already possess" the flexibility to present "a variety of scientific theories of humankind" ... and are "free to teach any and all facets on this subject." [emphasis added]

They further said, "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."(4)

After the 1987 court case when Louisiana had passed a law requiring creation to be taught, and the court struck that law down, Stephen Gould (who hates creationists, but still knows how his own belief is faulty) said, "No statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before, and it can be taught now."(5)

The court simply said that creation cannot be required to be taught, they didn't say you couldn't teach it. That was it!

The California State Schoolboard today says, "Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth and of life are appropriate to the science curriculum."(6)

Creationism has always been able to be taught in public schools in the science classroom! But down throught the years, the ACLU has learned that they only need to threaten a suit for the school to stop teaching creationism. They know they will lose the lawsuit, but it doesn't matter. The average principal who is threatened tells the average teacher to stop teaching creation or he/she will lose her job.

Now here the teachers have a problem. The Supreme Court says they can, the State Supreme Court says they can, the Circut Court says they can, even the California State Board of Education says you can, but their boss says you can't. This is what's breaking down the schools: gutless principals that won't stand up to the ACLU, and say, "Sue me!"

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Another lie used by evolutionists. In the 1960s over 200 "vestigals" were put into textbooks as evidence for evolution, including the thyroid gland (used for secreting hormones which regulate the body's metabolism) and the pituitary gland (a primary gland, located just under the brain which is used for secreting a large variety of hormones, and is at times called "the master gland"). Today, all of those same parts in the body are classified as having very important functions.

The coccyx is a bone commonly cited as "vestigal" by evolutionists even today! It is sometimes called the "tail" bone. But this is the part where you and I laugh. The "tail" bone on a human is not a tail bone at all! It is a special bone that has many muscles attached to it. If such a bone were not there, you would not be able to sit down. This bone supports the bodily structure to let a person sit upright. Other muscles on the bone allow a person to pass out solid wastes. I'm sure glad I've got it. I wonder why the evolutionists think the coccyx is vestigal...

The appendix is also considered "vestigal" by some evolutionists today as well. In reality, the appendix is used to fight off very dangerous diseases. Because it becomes swollen with infection for so much of the diseases it has fought, it is at times removed because it might explode at some point because of too much pressure put upon it while doing normal activities that involve running, swimming, etc. Sure, you could live without it, but you'll be more susceptible to diseases than before.

The tonsils play a similar part as the appendix does. And, for the same reason is removed. The tonsils are used to keep bad bacteria from going into certain parts of the body, because when breathing, the person sucks bacteria in the air. That's where the tonsils come in. You could live without it, but you're most likely to get sick more often.

On snakes, a set of bones on the underside of its body is often called "vestigal" by many evolutionists. They are said to have been legs at one point, and slowly, they lost the need for them as they became snakes. But this is also false. These "legs" are not legs. A few species, such as boas and pythons, have these bones which are similar to the pelvis. Only a few snakes have these bones externally which are often referred to as "spurs." These structures are used in reproduction, they are not vestigal.

Although this one isn't used anymore by evolutionists for the "vestigals" category, in the 60s, they thought the pineal gland, which is located in the center of the brain, was useless since they did not understand why it was there. We know now that the pineal gland regulates the body's waking and sleeping cycles by secreting the hormone "melatonin."

They still use the "gill slits" belief in textbooks today, which says that, in the baby embryo, little "gill slits" form, and they are vestigal. You'll understand if you see any picture of what I'm talking about. Ernst Haeckel's drawings of "gill slits" in human embryos was debunked about 130 years ago, and yet it is still used as evidence. These "gill slits" have nothing at all to do with the resperatory system (breathing). Rather, these devolop into parts of the face, neck, and other important glands. Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his own university in 1875. Proved wrong in 1875.

They'll say, "They've evolved into doing that now, but before they were gill slits. Natural selection right there. The body just adapted."

Ok, let me translate: "Long ago and far, far away in another mysterious land, the glands of the ear and the bones in the throat used to be used for breathing, boys and girls. Now, they've adapted and, even now, we see the stages taking place inside when you're a little fish embryo." And what does that spell? B-u-l-l-s-*-*-t. Oh yeah, long ago this happened, they say, and we can't see it happening today. Sure, I can believe that. Some evolutionists would agree with me saying, "This isn't taught anymore in the textbooks of this university," or something like, "We'll take it out of the next edition." Well GOOD! After 130 years it's about time! Unfortunately, the following highschool and college textbooks still use it:

Of course, there are many books from the year 2000 and other 90s dates that use it, but posting the most recent dates already implies that the writers are either ignorant, or liars. I compiled this list back in the year 2005 and haven't researched since. No telling how many textbooks are still using it, college textbooks especially.

Evolutionists simply do not want to admit they are wrong, and would rather lie than tell the truth, as history of the evolution cause clearly shows. All of the above examples (besides the pineal gland, pituitary gland, thyroid gland, and not counting the "gill slits") you can live without. But this does not mean you don't need them. Many evolutionists say that if you can live without it, it's vestigal. Well I've got an answer for those people: You can live without both your arms and legs; are they vestigal? Just because you can live without 'em, doesn't mean you don't need 'em!

The Grand Canyon is another regarded "evidence" for evolution, because of "erosion marks," even though there are none found. The entire canyon was obviously once mud, according to geologists who really study the patterns on the rock. Over a few years it hardened and became solid rock. The evolutionists also regard the layers as each representing one year. This is simply not so. I'll explain how the Grand Canyon is actually better evidence for creation than evolution.

1. The supposed strata found in the Grand Canyon is a very interesting subject to ponder. What they don't tell you is that there are only five of the twelve major strata systems in the Grand Canyon. Totally missing are the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. How strange...

2. Evolutionists explain the Colorado river cutting through about 8,000 feet of solid rock, with the help of wind and other natural processes. The problem here, is that they say it only took "a few million years" to cut through, even though the actual rock itself took 500 million years to lay down. The strata shows absolutely no evidence of any erosion whatsoever. Evolutionists are liars on the topic of the Grand Canyon.

3. If the Colorado had carved the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, we would find huge tumbled boulders in and alongside of the stream bed. This is what a river does if it carves. But this is not found.

4. The Colorado River lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and yet it is a typical winding river: the type found in fairly flat terrain. Winding rivers don't cut deeply, it is the straighter, steeper rivers with swiftly rushing water, which deeply erode soil and hurl loose rocks along its side downstream.

5. The river starts in the canyon at a lower elevation then the highest point of the canyon. In order for that little river to carve out such a big canyon the water would have to run up hill for millions of years. Water does not run uphill for millions, and millions, and millions of years.

The probable reasons for these things in the Grand Canyon is that the Colorado River must have drained an huge area in Utah and eastern Nevada during the global Flood. A lake covered that entire area, and an uplift caused the water to rather suddenly drain out. When you look at it it even looks like a former lake.

Shortly after the flood, while volcanism was at its height and the strata was still soft, the ground heaved upward over a vast area, which emptied Lake Bonneville. The water drained toward the southwest, forming Grand Canyon. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is all that remains of the ancient lake.

If you ever visit the area, you will see the former shoreline of the lake, high on the surrounding mountains. Why is this found?

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Back to Bible contradiction answers! As before, acclaimed contradictions are in bold and answers are in regular type.

Who bought potter's fieldACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

In Acts, Luke indicates that Judas purchased the field, while Matthew reveals that the chief priests bought the field. This is only difference in perspective, not contradiction.

The chief priests conducted the transaction for the field. However, it was neither with their money, nor would they have claimed the money. In Matthew 27:6, the evil nature of this money is talked about. They would not allow it to be included in the treasury, and certainly did not take possession of it for themselves. It had to be disposed of somehow. Thus, they purchased the field with it. Was it their field? No, for it was not their money that purchased the field. Remember, the priests did not want the money. The field was purchased by means of Judas, thus it was Judas' field. There is no contradiction here.

Who prophesied the potter's field?Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew regards this prophesy to Jeremiah when it seems much like the credit should go to Zechariah.

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

--Zechariah 11:12-13

Matthew didn't make any mistake. He simply quoted from two prophets but only mentioned Jeremiah. Matthew mentions the purchase of a field, but however, Zechariah does not. This is where Jeremiah comes in. Jeremiah 18:2-12, 19:1-13, and 32:6-9 speak of potters as well as the purchase of a field. There is no mess-up.

Who bears guilt?GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

You are taking the scripture out of context, again. In Galatians 6:1-2, the apostle Paul teaches that Christians ought to look out for one another; that our love is to drive us to help one another to overcome the tricks of Satan.

Though we are commanded to aid one another, the apostle acknowledges that we will stand before the Lord alone. Thus, each one is to "...examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone..." When it comes to our judgment before the Lord (cf. v 7-9; Romans 2:6; 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10), we will not stand with another, but alone.

Do you answer a fool?PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I have no doubt you have probably heard of a 'catch 22'. To act in one way brings an unwanted result, to act in another fashion brings a different unwanted result. Dealing with a fool is a 'catch 22'. If you answer him, it may happen that others will equate you with the fool. If you don't answer him, then he will probably consider himself wise from what he has said, for he has silenced you.

And almost the exact same kind of thing is occurring here. Guess who the fool is.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death. SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

Before being returned to David, Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (II Samuel 21:8).

However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord made her unable to bear children. The writer's comment in II Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Where's the contradiction? Isn't it possible that at the age of eight, Jehoiachin was exalted by his father to reign along side him for the remaining years of his life (10 years), and upon the death of his father, in II Kings 24:5, at the age of eighteen, Jehoiachin began to reign alone. It appears that he "apprenticed" under his father, learning his father's evil ways, and then repeating them according to later scripture.

Marriage?Proverbs 18:221 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

The Bible constantly talks about marriage as a good thing, even from the very beginning of creation. Paul, who wrote the words under consideration by the question in 1 Corinthians, certainly did not think it wrong to have a wife. In the same letter, he asks,

"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

--I Corinthians 9:5

If it were wrong or bad to have a wife, he would definately not speak of his right to have one.The words in I Corinthians 7 must be understood in their historical context. He says,

"I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

--I Corinthians 7:26

There were circumstances that faced the church at the time of Paul's writings, which dictated the attitude of his words concerning marriage.

In I Corinthians 7:32, Paul speaks as he does that the saints might "...be without care." And again, he says,

"And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

--I Corinthians 7:35

He understood that a person who was married had to try to please his spouse (I Corinthians 7:32-34), which could be a distraction to serving the Lord. However, Paul commands elsewhere,

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

--Ephesians 5:22

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."

--Ephesians 5:25

Paul was never against marriage.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Refers to Paul hearing the voice, but not knowing what it said. Simple logic.

Friday, July 25, 2008

I had a English project a long while back where I had to gather certain news stories and put them into my own words in headline-main paragraph form (which explains the reason some don't explain too much). I decided to have some fun with it and got a few strange stories. The first news bulletin about Barbie wasn't on the project and I didn't write it, although I forgot who did. Just found it on Yahoo News one day and decided to save the information since it was very unusual. That one's just for fun.

-------------------------------------------------------------

2003: Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (the muttawa or religious police) declares that Barbie's provocative clothing is offensive to Islam, saying that "Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful."

The doll is already banned in the kingdom as a "Jewish" toy, but are available as contraband. Mattel loses a legal battle against American artist Tom Forsythe. Forsythe had made images of Barbie showing her nude and in sexual and other situations. The court decided that the images qualified as satire, and were thus legal.

------------------------------------------------------------And these are from me:

A Chinese couple from Beijing sought for a unique name for their child. They chose "@."

The couple was cited by a government official as an example of citizens bringing "...bizarre names into the Chinese language." Government officials found it "annoying" for the couple to call their child such an "unorthodox" name as the emailing internet symbol, "at." Li Yuming, vice director of the State Language Commission, said at a news conference that the father "...said 'the whole world uses it to write e-mails and, translated into Chinese, it means 'love him.'"

~~~

An Indonesian bearded baby attracts hundreds to a small town in Central Sulawesi where he was born.

"I hope my son grows up to have a special gift," 16-year-old mother Mitra told the English Language Daily. The baby was born Monday, July 9th with, according to the Indonesian News Blog, "a tuft of soft whiskers flowing from his chin." Doctors said, "This is a strange baby." Central Sulawesi Health Office head, Abdullah, told The Jakarta Post, "I don't have the medical explanation for the beard and whiskers on this baby." Stranger yet, the baby's father, 20 year-old Rifai, said the placenta to be extraordinary, colored red, white, and blue. The baby's beard was grey in color, and measured at 3 centimeters.

~~~

An unlikely object exploded, destroying a Georgia home: a lawnmower.

Danny Fendley just wanted the grass to be cut, but instead burned down his house. It occured on a hot Tuesday in Johns Creek, Georgia. Inside his garage, Fendley said he was tugging at his mower's pull-chord, when the machine suddenly burst into flames. Before he could extinguish the fire the entire garage was blazing. His wife then tried tossing a gasoline can out a window but missed, spreading the fuel "everywhere" he explained. In less than a minute the entire house was engulfed with flames, but the couple escaped with no serious injuries.

~~~

A lucky cat hides in a loveseat from a fire, giving it only 8 lives to live.

In West Orange, New Jersey a fire broke out Saturday night in a two-story house. No one was injured, but the tenant's cat was thought by firefighters to have been killed by the flames and smoke. "To our amazement, it had survived," Fire Chief Peter Smeraldo told The Star-Ledger of Newark. "They should change that cat's name to Lucky." The thrilled owner took the cat with him to reside at a relative's home for the time.

~~~

After 55 years of torment, a German woman has a pencil removed from her brain.

As a child, Margaret Wegner was carrying a 3.15 inch-long pencil and fell, boring it through her check and into her brain. According to Wegner it went, "...right through the skin and disappeared into my head. It hurt like crazy," she told Germany's best-selling newspaper, Bild. She lived with it since there was no safe way to remove it at the time. Chronic nosebleeds, headaches, and the loss of her sense of smell were the results of the incident. Doctor Hans Behrbohm, however, was able to pinpoint the exact location of the pencil using modern techniques, so that he could determine the risks of removing it, and then take most of it out. The operation was successful, with the exception of a small piece that could not be removed, but poses no danger, says Dr. Behrbohm.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

I was in a chatroom, but I was alone. Totally alone, and didn't know what to do. It was a chatroom from a website for "Lord of the Rings" but it got a bit unpopular a few years after "Return of the King" came out.

So anyway, I was there and no one was in the chatroom, so I decided to talk with myself. My sister read it and thought it was pretty hilarious, spending my time idly. Anyone reading this might not think the same, thinking I have no life and what I said was dumb and unnecessary. But some might like it. Whatever. I'm posting it here. Just for the fun of it (and personally, taking a break from posting serious stuff all the time).

--hi--i wish more people would come here more often--and here i am, talkin' to myself--why?--because i don't have a single friend to talk to anyway--is there a moderator here?--monitoring me?--if you're here, say something--talk--i'm so bored--lonely--SAY SOMETHING!!--ugh--look at those comments--Truman, Truman, Truman, Truman...etc...etc...--GOD! please, is there anyone here who just doesn't have a visible name?--anyone?--please?--one day there was a small bear named Millard--He liked to eat gummy bears--why?--i don't know why--anyway, he ate gummy bears...--and one day he fell down a well--luckily, one of his gummy bears was stuck to his mouth--the stickyness of the gummy was so strong that when it hit the wall of the well on the way down, it stuck fast--saved by his own food--yes, i know it's stupid--well who do you think i am, Shakespeare??--Damn, you can be annoying for an invisible friend--oops--did I say, "damn"?--I really meant "Gosh-darn-it-geez-fooey-i-can't-believe-it's-not-butter"--makin' jokes to myself--i am such a *bleep*--*bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep*--oooh, that felt good.--yueah--*yeah--i'm correcting my typos to satisfy NO ONE!--there's no one here, so why do I stay?--because I'm stupid?--yes--yes, I'm am a bloody fool to stay here waiting for no one--after Return of the King came out, this place started to get scarce of people--now, I'm the only idiot who still comes here to check and see if anyone still visits--am I stupid?--AM I STUPID???--yeah. i'm a bloody fool--why the hell--er, I mean, "heck" am I using the word "bloody"?--I'm not british--I'm not Aussie--I'm American--pure bred--standard horsepower, genuine leather upholstry--real American--yeah--I'm talking away--why?--I'm gonna check out what I've written so far and then I'll make a comment. My comment will be:--What a fool I am.--Stupid, dumb, idiotic, foolish, jocular...--I can't believe it's not butter--now doesn't that make you WONDER!--now when I go to the store, I don't know what to believe anymore--what's butter?--if it's "i can't believe it's not butter", then what is it?--margarine?--slime?--butter-flavored ****?--I can't believe it's not butter--Who's this "I" in the title anyway?--"I" can't believe it's not butter.--who said that?--If he couldn't believe, maybe it's butter, but he just doesn't believe it--Cynic--Cynic of butter--butter goes on bread--bread is a basic culprit in the scheme of the butter-flavored world--what the hell does that mean?--I don't care anymore--it's like those burgers we're being served--1,000 cows in one burger--what if it's like that with pork?--man, before you ate babe.--now you eat his family, along with all the neighbors.--you offended just one pig. now, a colony?--it's like a dictatorship--well, no, not that.--just a...--a...--what happens if the movie "Soylent Green" becomes a reality?--talk about burgers--i'd rather eat the soylent orange, if you know what I mean...--if pigs could fly, would it be a different world?--it'd be harder to eat pork, that's for sure--would they become "fowl"?--The new predator--Hawk, eagle, there's a new bird in town--pork bird--and he's hungry--wow, what if pigs actually preyed after squirrels and stuff?--Squirrel: Watch out!!!! Porkbird: OOOink, OOOink.--a new bird call--imagine waking up.--OOOink, OOOink, OOOink... WEEIIH, WEEIIH.--Sweet morning mood--duck hunters would change their ways--wobble world--that could be a new theme park--welcome to wobble world--where you can't build a house of cards--the whole place would quake all the time, hence "Wobble World"--hey, you could have it, "Wobbleworld"--that's like trying to say "waterworld" with a speech impediment--"I wubba wap wobblewold. I woah ip wated au, bup I wuma wap ip amyway!"--Translation: I wanna watch water world. I know it's rated "R", but I wanna watch it anyway!"--Now read them together and imagine a guy with this problem.--Imagine him in school--Wobbleworld--where nothing stays still--talk about toddler heaven--Take your small child there and see your dreams become reality--you wonder, how long can he really run around, bounce, kick things, and be crazy till he runs out of gas?--special booth just for this purpose--the loon room--there's a timer and everything. see how long he can go until he passes out in frustration and tires out--it's like a fun place for kids, and an educational place for parents--the parents learn how long the insanity will last, so they'll be ready when they get home.--sure, he/she will be the same, but now you'll know when he'll crash and take a long nap--"ok honey, time for your nap."--"but i'm not sweepy!"--"3, 2, 1--"--"zzzzzzzzzzzzz"--Toddler + Wobbleworld = 1 happy parent--Let's talk about red pickles--strange, but did you know there are really red pickles in the world?--bad-ass pickles--they're the redneck pickles.--been on the rough side of life--they're tougher than the regular happy green pickle.--they roam around. being all red--I bet if the green pickles and the red pickles had a war, the green pickles would win--why?--they've got the "I can't believe it's not butter" ally--red pickles might have some sourkraut come in at the last moment. save a few warts on their part. but then the green's artillery, the rye bread. that'll sink all the reds back into their slimy pool of bloody broth that they arose from previously.--thus, the pickle war would be brought to a cold, crunchy end when the "wobbleworld" speech impediment guy comes over and bites his way through a smooth, pickle captain--I just thought about how sick I'm sounding--I never even thought for a second, you know?--kinda got caught up in the pickle battles--I'll stop now.--...--nah, I'll keep talking.--Balloons--flying in a helium balloon--no one thinks about that--they automatically think "hot-air balloon"--but take a helium balloon--the whole day you'd laugh and laugh--especially if you had a friend with you--bring a recorder up there--no, better--bring a megaphone.--when you fly over a town...--yeah.--People'd look up.--"What the-?"--Fly over Washington--got some important people talking. the president comes out...--"HELLO DOWN THERE!"--damn, the chipmunks go global--fly over tokyo--they'd love it--they love anything like that--fly over london--parliament dismisses--comes out, "FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD!"--see the looks on their faces--being all superior--fly over mexico--they'll think their radios are on too loud.--fly over Iran--it's the minaret call for prayer time.--you could just happen to be in the direction of Mecca--watch em all get down in the street and pray in your direction--fly over the congo--they'll think you're one of their gods--the new SQUIRREL GOD!--The zoo.--During the winter there was a particularly cold day. The zookeepers leave the lions and elephants out since they can stand the weather.--Sure, THEY think that. Yeah, and then they become desperate. I knew a guy once. He went to the zoo during this day. The lions were at the end of their rope, man.--Starting to poop all over each other to keep themselves warm. He laughed and laughed and then thought... that's not funny. It was kinda sad.--These animals are trying to survive in any way possible. The zookeepers were idiots.